Egypt online

For the past week and a half, the world has had its eyes on Egypt. The political unrest there has held the focus of news networks across the globe and maintained its place on the front pages of newspapers. By now, mere news reports have been joined by a multitude of op-ed pieces; live blogs have shifted the conversation into the present tense; and Glenn Beck has made an appearance on the O’Reilly Factor because apparently one of them at a time just doesn’t suffice. If live coverage is what you’re after, however, your best bet is probably Twitter.

That may sound surprising to some, especially since the social networking site is often accused of serving no real purpose. For those of us interested in Egypt and looking on from overseas, however, the exact opposite is true: Twitter brings us news in a way that no other outlet can.

For one, Twitter is about as real-time as it gets, which means that it exhibits the same strength in relation to mainstream media as Wikipedia does in relation to traditional reference sources. Its information evolves as the story does, and the typical disregard for sentence structure and syntax allow for second-to-second updates (after all, tweets are limited to only 140 characters). Free from the restrictions of major networks, Twitter’s by-product form of reporting can turn on a dime and, as a result, is often more reliable when it comes to immediately discerning the gist of an incident. It also offers the brand of unintended neutrality that arises from discussion in a public forum. The thread becomes an aggregate of all kinds of reports and analyses, allowing the user to discern where the truth lies. Consequently, Twitter can replace the thorough approach to media consumption that often requires hours of digging around in order to discern the biases between different mainstream media sources.

In the end, however, the Egyptian government’s alleged act of banning Twitter in recent days is probably the most impressive testament to its efficacy as a news outlet. Of course, no one can say for certain whether Mubarak’s regime is responsible, but many following the developments feel strongly that there is little other explanation. Regardless, it appears that Google sympathizes, as on Tuesday the web giant launched a program that will allow Egyptians to continue to make their tweets known to the world. By calling one of three international phone numbers, Egyptian users can leave a voice recording of their desired message, and the company will take care of the rest. As noble as this Twitter-based aid is, it should be noted as well that it relies upon the maintenance of mobile phone and landline connectivity, a luxury which is far from certain.

From the fears of the Egyptian government to the eyes and efforts of people across the world, the role of Twitter and the Internet in the recent goings-on raises an important question: To what extent is it a governing body’s duty to permit free access to the Internet within its borders? Without Internet access, a modern country cannot maintain its connections with other world nations, markets and the masses, and so the deprivation of access constitutes censorship and a violation of civil liberties. Social networking products which at one time seemed frivolous are quickly revealing themselves to be platforms of free speech in our globally integrated world.

For those who might scoff at the notion of Internet use as something akin to an inalienable right, remember that rights must be granted relative to the context in which they exist. For example, our right to free speech has not always been bound up inextricably with mankind, because for a time man existed without speech. Only after the development of language, society and government did we recognize our right to speak our minds and demand it as a guarantee. Perhaps it is time that we grant the Internet a similar status, with the revolution in Egypt as its strongest contemporary testament.

Chris Bassil is a Trinity junior. His column runs every Friday.